User:Doncram/NRHP disambiguation
I have started hundreds if not thousands of dab articles, and have contributed to thousands more. Only recently did i start tagging them with {{WikiProject NRHP|class=dab}}, so as of March 21, 2009, there are only 279 in Category:Disambig-Class National Register of Historic Places articles. (As of April 2 there are 417.) (As of April 26 there are 792.) (As of February 9, 2010 there are 1,743.) Currently there are 3,685 articles in Category:Disambig-Class National Register of Historic Places articles.
I note problems and clean them up later, using {{NRHP dab needing cleanup}} to tag them. A few other NRHPers tag similarly (you can too!), and i eventually come around to clean up. Hopefully Category:NRHP dab needing cleanup is not overly large. (As of February 9, 2010, there is just 1 thorny one in the cleanup category, after i cleared out a few that had accumulated.) Currently there are 0 articles in Category:NRHP dab needing cleanup.
Dabs including NRHP listings used to be deleted frequently; this list used to develop redlinks. Also, the NRHP items were often ripped off of them. Since I went and asked for a tutorial, I believe no NRHP dabs have been deleted, and few if any NRHP entries have been axed. Rats, I missed this recent AfD (outcome: J. C. Penney Building survived).
Some rules for NRHP dab development and cleanup:
- each dab entry should usually have one and only one bluelink,
- each dab entry should show the actual full name of the article, which should not be hidden by pipelink or redirect
- usually the articles' names should not be changed to conform to the dab page, but rather the other way around
- presence of a misfitting entry on the dab should sometimes be explained (e.g., on the First Presbyterian Church dab, an entry like Fish Church might need, further, "also known as First Presbyterian Church of Stamford" )
- For NRHP entries where the article has not been created, a red-link to the official NRHP program name to the intended article can/should be shown (and official names may vary in format, sometimes requiring disambiguating (city, state) and sometimes not).
- For the NRHP entries where the article is a red-link, a bluelink to the corresponding NRHP list-article which shows the same red-link should be included. I have often taken the expedient of merely linking to a state-wide NRHP list-article, but for states whose NRHP list-articles have been subdivided, the technically correct place to link to is a county- or city-specific narrrower list-article. If someone is gonna have a cow, i might just create the NRHP article rather than refine the bluelink.
- For NRHP entries where the article is now a bluelink, the link to the corresponding NRHP list-article should be removed. This can be done by delinking and just showing the phrase "listed on the NRHP in __(State)__". This could also be done by removing the phrase completely, but I think it helps the dab lists to show the NRHP listing info for these. It suggests to arriving new editors, that perhaps notability matters, and I think it helps toward fending off directory-type additions of non-notable places.
- All the NRHP ones are wikipedia-notable, that has been generally established, because NRHP listing reflects an official recognition of a place's importance for architectural or other reasons, and there are extensive NRHP nomination/registration documents available to provide documentation.
- Other red-link entries not having an associated blue-link which provides context and an identical red-link, could arguably be deleted, because their notability has not been established and is not even supported in any observable way. However, I personally choose not to delete those, to avoid getting into fights and because many such red-links may actually be to notable places.
See Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Disambiguation, issues list started by Ebyabe i believe.
There was some issue at User talk:Polaron#(City, State) vs. (State) for disambiguation, in this page version.
In February 2010, a current issue is that a dab editor is, in effect, complaining that the supporting bluelinks for some NRHP items are not precise enough , i.e. that one linking to a state-wide NRHP list as in:
is inadequate, when instead it should be linking more precisely to a county list that has been split out, as in:
I would appreciate if a few more editors would occasionally do some refining of NRHP supporting bluelinks in other dab pages, to show some progress for the dab-focussed editors (altho progress is being shown all the time, by creation of articles and updating of all these dab pages to drop the supporting bluelinks). Perhaps we could each just make an effort to refine one or two supporting bluelinks, at the same time as making some other dab page change? I would hope that should suffice. --doncram (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
See User:Doncram/NRHP disambiguation/checklist. --doncram (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)